THERE is an interesting population debate that has been going on in the country pitting Registrar General Tobaiwa Mudede and University of Zimbabwe Professor, Marvellous Mhloyi.
As Shepherd Manhambara said last week, while Mudede is advocating a big population primarily for deterrent reasons, Mhloyi is for a modest population size proportionate to available resources, facilities and opportunities.
However, what is fascinating about this issue is that it is certain organisations like UNFPA and USAID that are actually in the process of organising family planning workshops in the country in order to ‘protect women and promote economic development in the country’.
But how genuine is this reason?
For the argument implies that Africans, in particular, African men are daft and unloving to levels that they cannot take care of their wives.
That African men are a danger to their women.
Is it therefore not mischievous for the likes of UNFPA and USAID to say our population must not grow otherwise there will be a shortage of resources and that the country will not develop.
Here is an interesting fact.
Zimbabwe is nearly one-and-a-half times bigger than Britain, yet population wise, Zimbabwe has about 13 million people compared to Britain’s 65 million.
If it is about resources, Britain’s resources are fast depleting yet its population is increasing besides hosting millions of immigrants.
Zimbabwe on the other hand boasts of vast arable land, minerals ranging from coal to diamonds and other natural resources that Britain will never possess.
And as Zimbabweans scrutinise this population debate, it’s important to note that for years, the Clintons and Gates foundations have been arguing that the world is over populated.
They have been pumping billions into family planning methods and population control clinics especially in the developing world.
Research by the population research institute draws attention to a United Nations report, World Population to 2300.
The document states that if European fertility rates do not rise above current levels by 2300, their population would fall to only 59 million from 450 to 455 million (2005 estimate).
This means that half the countries of Europe would lose 95 percent or more of their population.  
Yet the message constantly bombarded to the world, albeit the ‘poor’ developing nation, is that the world’s seven billion population is stifling resources.
Of course Europe omits to tell the world that it is in these so-called ‘poor’ nations where most of the resources are found.
Therefore a population boom would increase the demand for these resources needed by the industrialised states of Europe.
Overpopulation is generally defined as a situation where the number of people exhausts the resources in a closed environment such that it can no longer support that population.
Hence this over-population alarm is meant to primarily protect rich land owners.
For example, it is said Queen Elizabeth owns about 6,6 million acres of land, translating to one sixth of the earth’s non-ocean surface.
Hence instead of investing in establishing means of combating hunger outside of aid, the so-called First World countries, using the likes of UNFPA, USAID, Clintons and Gates Foundation and other organisations would rather fund population control services which means less competition on resources.
The whole debate is shrouded in myths, half truths and fear, but one thing for certain is Zimbabweans must take this whole ‘family planning’ issue with a pinch of salt because foreigners cannot decide the size of our families.